[WH40k] 1000 pts Space Marine Salamanders Army for Review
Tobias Reinold
after a few more games (which I all lost due to bad dice luck and immature
tactics, - save one game against Necrons), I have come up with this new army
list. I own all models of it right now, and I am planning only small or
minor changes (but even this attitude may change after having a few battles
with this force). Note that Salamander rules apply. Comments are given when
I feel it necessary:
HQ:
Leader with StormBolter, CCW and Frags ... 37
[now, that's a pretty cheap HQ, eh? I actually don't believe in an
tooled-up, expensive HQ anymore, after all, I want to spend my points in
troops and heavy weaponery, not in a single guy]
Troops:
5 Tac Squad, Plasma Rifle, Missile Launcher ... 91
5 Tac Squad, Plasma Rifle, Missile Launcher ... 91
[Those will simply support the flanks, and give return fire]
10 Tac Squad, Flamer, Heavy Flamer ... 166
[my bullet catchers and core of my troops ... they can also counter attack
and are a pain for soft targets]
5 Tac Squad, Melter, Multimelter, Veteran Sgt+Signum ... 130
[my tank/monster hunters ... the veteran sergeant ensures good hit-rate]
[OK, I might drop the Multimelter and VetSgt if this squad still doesn't
prove useful, just to get a few more troops (or buy a Rhino for the leftover
points)]
5 Scout Squad, 4 Sniper Rifles ... 85
[do I actually have to say something about it? Just one more question: Would
it be a good thing to spend points for more Snipers? Has anyone experience
with a squad of - let's say - 8 snipers?]
Fast Assault:
9 Assault Marines, *without* jump-pack ... 135
[since they all come with BP, CCW and Frags, and cost only 15, I think
they're quite an alternative for the 18pts Veterans ... the only thing is I
can only give them one flamer for 12 pts and no Rhino support ... but I
actually want them to stay behind and support the flanks when it is
necessary ... I want a shooty army]
Support:
Whirlwind, Extra Armor ... 80
5 Dev Squad, 4 ML, VetSgt with Signum ... 185
[I love them, they have a really good hit-ratio]
Alltogether: 1000 pts.
I want it to be rather shooty, and only assault when the enemy comes too
close. What do you think of it?
Tobias
Kaos Lord
Tobias Reinold <Toxi...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:8qnonr$pb1$11$1...@news.t-online.com...
> Hello Everybody,
> after a few more games (which I all lost due to bad dice luck and immature
> tactics, - save one game against Necrons), I have come up with this new
army
> list. I own all models of it right now, and I am planning only small or
> minor changes (but even this attitude may change after having a few
battles
> with this force). Note that Salamander rules apply. Comments are given
when
> I feel it necessary:
>
> HQ:
> Leader with StormBolter, CCW and Frags ... 37
>
> [now, that's a pretty cheap HQ, eh? I actually don't believe in an
> tooled-up, expensive HQ anymore, after all, I want to spend my points in
> troops and heavy weaponery, not in a single guy]
>
If it is a shooty army, why give him frag grenades (or was it just a left
over point)
> Troops:
> 5 Tac Squad, Plasma Rifle, Missile Launcher ... 91
> 5 Tac Squad, Plasma Rifle, Missile Launcher ... 91
> [Those will simply support the flanks, and give return fire]
>
may want to bump these up to 8 or even 10, not much support from only 5 guys
(4 if they have to move).
> 10 Tac Squad, Flamer, Heavy Flamer ... 166
> [my bullet catchers and core of my troops ... they can also counter attack
> and are a pain for soft targets]
>
> 5 Tac Squad, Melter, Multimelter, Veteran Sgt+Signum ... 130
> [my tank/monster hunters ... the veteran sergeant ensures good hit-rate]
> [OK, I might drop the Multimelter and VetSgt if this squad still doesn't
> prove useful, just to get a few more troops (or buy a Rhino for the
leftover
> points)]
>
bump the suad up one and go for a Razorback...
> 5 Scout Squad, 4 Sniper Rifles ... 85
> [do I actually have to say something about it? Just one more question:
Would
> it be a good thing to spend points for more Snipers? Has anyone experience
> with a squad of - let's say - 8 snipers?]
>
Beware of Lichtors...
> Fast Assault:
> 9 Assault Marines, *without* jump-pack ... 135
> [since they all come with BP, CCW and Frags, and cost only 15, I think
> they're quite an alternative for the 18pts Veterans ... the only thing is
I
> can only give them one flamer for 12 pts and no Rhino support ... but I
> actually want them to stay behind and support the flanks when it is
> necessary ... I want a shooty army]
>
Just take another tac squad or possibly a Land Speeder (or two) to support
your flanks... I would even consider a squad of Terminators with a couple of
assault cannons (you seem to have enough missile launchers already).
> Support:
> Whirlwind, Extra Armor ... 80
>
give it smoke also...just in case you need to move it for some reason...
> 5 Dev Squad, 4 ML, VetSgt with Signum ... 185
> [I love them, they have a really good hit-ratio]
>
Devestator squads are good, and they seem to reflect a persons style of
play, I have seem them with all ML, all LC, all HB, and one with all PC,
that guy has a bizarre army...He uses Space Marines and has a couple of
SOB's mixed in with the squads, to give the army a Mixed flavour, his
devastator squad has 4 Plasma Cannons a Sister superior (Vet Sgt) and 5
sisters with bolters, he calls it squad PMS...and it is nasty...
> Alltogether: 1000 pts.
>
> I want it to be rather shooty, and only assault when the enemy comes too
> close. What do you think of it?
>
It could work... I never really thought of Salamanders as a shooty army
though...
Kaos
Doug Butabi
have a VINDICATOR!!!!!!
*takes sedative*
*collapses into deep coma*
--
Doug Butabi - Warrior General of E.A
No matter how hungry you are, never ever eat a teabag...
"The beginning of love is to let those we love be perfectly themselves, and
not to twist them with our own image - otherwise, we love only the
reflection
of ourselves we find in them."
"Kaos Lord" <theka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ocKz5.5$ZS4....@nntp2.onemain.com...
Tobias Reinold
Kaos Lord schrieb in Nachricht ...
>> HQ:
>> Leader with StormBolter, CCW and Frags ... 37
>over point)
additionally, I can attach him now to my assault squad
>
>> Troops:
>> 5 Tac Squad, Plasma Rifle, Missile Launcher ... 91
>> 5 Tac Squad, Plasma Rifle, Missile Launcher ... 91
>> [Those will simply support the flanks, and give return fire]
>>
>
>may want to bump these up to 8 or even 10, not much support from only 5
guys
>(4 if they have to move).
true, but where do I get the points from?
>
>> 10 Tac Squad, Flamer, Heavy Flamer ... 166
>> [my bullet catchers and core of my troops ... they can also counter
attack
>> and are a pain for soft targets]
>>
>> 5 Tac Squad, Melter, Multimelter, Veteran Sgt+Signum ... 130
>> [my tank/monster hunters ... the veteran sergeant ensures good hit-rate]
>> [OK, I might drop the Multimelter and VetSgt if this squad still doesn't
>> prove useful, just to get a few more troops (or buy a Rhino for the
>leftover
>> points)]
>>
>
>bump the suad up one and go for a Razorback...
maybe I drop the whole thing for more marines and a few heavy bolters in my
army.
>
>> 5 Scout Squad, 4 Sniper Rifles ... 85
>> [do I actually have to say something about it? Just one more question:
>Would
>> it be a good thing to spend points for more Snipers? Has anyone
experience
>> with a squad of - let's say - 8 snipers?]
>>
>
>Beware of Lichtors...
*arrgh*, a week ago a lictor ripped all 5 of them apart ...
I still need to learn some lessons ...
>
>> Fast Assault:
>> 9 Assault Marines, *without* jump-pack ... 135
>> [since they all come with BP, CCW and Frags, and cost only 15, I think
>> they're quite an alternative for the 18pts Veterans ... the only thing is
>I
>> can only give them one flamer for 12 pts and no Rhino support ... but I
>> actually want them to stay behind and support the flanks when it is
>> necessary ... I want a shooty army]
>>
>Just take another tac squad or possibly a Land Speeder (or two) to support
>your flanks... I would even consider a squad of Terminators with a couple
of
>assault cannons (you seem to have enough missile launchers already).
No assault cannons, Salamanders are not allowed to take those. I still want
to see those Assault marines in action. At least for a few times.
>
>> Support:
>> Whirlwind, Extra Armor ... 80
>>
>give it smoke also...just in case you need to move it for some reason...
good point
>
>> 5 Dev Squad, 4 ML, VetSgt with Signum ... 185
>> [I love them, they have a really good hit-ratio]
>>
>Devestator squads are good, and they seem to reflect a persons style of
>play, I have seem them with all ML, all LC, all HB, and one with all PC,
>that guy has a bizarre army...He uses Space Marines and has a couple of
>SOB's mixed in with the squads, to give the army a Mixed flavour, his
>devastator squad has 4 Plasma Cannons a Sister superior (Vet Sgt) and 5
>sisters with bolters, he calls it squad PMS...and it is nasty...
the thing is I think HB have their place in tac squads, nowhere else (hey, 5
points *are* a bargain), and PCs can get too dangerous, even with a signum
... and I actually never thought of using LCs ... mostly because of their
point cost and since I can nearly have the same with MLs
>
>> Alltogether: 1000 pts.
>>
>> I want it to be rather shooty, and only assault when the enemy comes too
>> close. What do you think of it?
>>
>It could work... I never really thought of Salamanders as a shooty army
>though...
>
What else should Salamanders do? The I 3 is a major turn off for assault.
Tobias
Kaos Lord
>
> Kaos Lord schrieb in Nachricht ...
> >> HQ:
> >> Leader with StormBolter, CCW and Frags ... 37
> >If it is a shooty army, why give him frag grenades (or was it just a left
> >over point)
> Exactly, it was 999 points and I thought those Frags won't hurt ...
> additionally, I can attach him now to my assault squad
>
> >
> >> Troops:
> >> 5 Tac Squad, Plasma Rifle, Missile Launcher ... 91
> >> 5 Tac Squad, Plasma Rifle, Missile Launcher ... 91
> >> [Those will simply support the flanks, and give return fire]
> >>
> >
> >may want to bump these up to 8 or even 10, not much support from only 5
> guys
> >(4 if they have to move).
> true, but where do I get the points from?
>
You could consider going to 1500 points, that seems pretty standard for most
games...
> >
> >> 10 Tac Squad, Flamer, Heavy Flamer ... 166
> >> [my bullet catchers and core of my troops ... they can also counter
> attack
> >> and are a pain for soft targets]
> >>
> >> 5 Tac Squad, Melter, Multimelter, Veteran Sgt+Signum ... 130
> >> [my tank/monster hunters ... the veteran sergeant ensures good
hit-rate]
> >> [OK, I might drop the Multimelter and VetSgt if this squad still
doesn't
> >> prove useful, just to get a few more troops (or buy a Rhino for the
> >leftover
> >> points)]
> >>
> >
> >bump the suad up one and go for a Razorback...
> maybe I drop the whole thing for more marines and a few heavy bolters in
my
> army.
>
That is also a good option...
Didn't realize they could not have them, since I have such a large number of
points invested in DA, I don't much look at other SM armies...37 Points?
Terminators only cost you 37 points? That's wacked (mine cost 52 points
each), even if you do only get I3. at 37 Point's I would use the HELL out
of terminators!
> >
> >> Support:
> >> Whirlwind, Extra Armor ... 80
> >>
> >give it smoke also...just in case you need to move it for some reason...
>
> good point
>
> >
> >> 5 Dev Squad, 4 ML, VetSgt with Signum ... 185
> >> [I love them, they have a really good hit-ratio]
> >>
> >Devestator squads are good, and they seem to reflect a persons style of
> >play, I have seem them with all ML, all LC, all HB, and one with all PC,
> >that guy has a bizarre army...He uses Space Marines and has a couple of
> >SOB's mixed in with the squads, to give the army a Mixed flavour, his
> >devastator squad has 4 Plasma Cannons a Sister superior (Vet Sgt) and 5
> >sisters with bolters, he calls it squad PMS...and it is nasty...
>
> the thing is I think HB have their place in tac squads, nowhere else (hey,
5
> points *are* a bargain), and PCs can get too dangerous, even with a signum
> ... and I actually never thought of using LCs ... mostly because of their
> point cost and since I can nearly have the same with MLs
>
Why does every one panic about rolling a one with their Plasma weapons, you
still get a 3+ save! In order to loose the model first you need to roll a 1
and then a 1 or a 2, the odds are actually against that!
Kaos
Greg Brockway
>10 Tac Squad, Flamer, Heavy Flamer ... 166
>[my bullet catchers and core of my troops ... they can also counter
attack
>and are a pain for soft targets]
Where in the Codex does it say you can take a flamer and a heavy
flamer? Was
there a correction I missed (very possible)? Should be two flamers.
>5 Scout Squad, 4 Sniper Rifles ... 85
>[do I actually have to say something about it? Just one more question:
Would
>it be a good thing to spend points for more Snipers? Has anyone
experience
>with a squad of - let's say - 8 snipers?]
Nice, but as long as you're not moving, make one of them a ML or AC. My
1500
Sally has 2 five man sniper scout teams, one with ML and one with AC.
Gives you the
ability to punch armor if need be.
>Fast Assault:
>9 Assault Marines, *without* jump-pack ... 135
>[since they all come with BP, CCW and Frags, and cost only 15, I think
>they're quite an alternative for the 18pts Veterans ... the only thing
is I
>can only give them one flamer for 12 pts and no Rhino support ... but I
>actually want them to stay behind and support the flanks when it is
>necessary ... I want a shooty army]
I don't think this is given as an option for the salamander assault
squads (jump pack
removal, that is).
>5 Dev Squad, 4 ML, VetSgt with Signum ... 185
>[I love them, they have a really good hit-ratio]
Also nice to drop a plasma cannon in their. The whirlwind is nice
against large
orks and such, but he cannon works better against the more powerful.
>I want it to be rather shooty, and only assault when the enemy comes
too
>close. What do you think of it?
The only way to play Sallies effectively, except against IG.
Hope this helped.
Greg
Greg Brockway
Tobias Reinold
>You could consider going to 1500 points, that seems pretty standard for
most
>games...
true, I'll do that in the far future only, since my budget is empty
concerning new models.
>> >
>> >bump the suad up one and go for a Razorback...
>> maybe I drop the whole thing for more marines and a few heavy bolters in
>my
>> army.
>>
>
>That is also a good option...
thank you, I hope it fits my style
>> No assault cannons, Salamanders are not allowed to take those. I still
>want
>> to see those Assault marines in action. At least for a few times.
>>
>
>Didn't realize they could not have them, since I have such a large number
of
>points invested in DA, I don't much look at other SM armies...37 Points?
>Terminators only cost you 37 points? That's wacked (mine cost 52 points
>each), even if you do only get I3. at 37 Point's I would use the HELL out
>of terminators!
hehe, just wait for the 1500-progress ... but I kinda need to get along with
normal marines first (remember I am rather a bloody newbie)
>>
>> the thing is I think HB have their place in tac squads, nowhere else
(hey,
>5
>> points *are* a bargain), and PCs can get too dangerous, even with a
signum
>> ... and I actually never thought of using LCs ... mostly because of their
>> point cost and since I can nearly have the same with MLs
>>
>Why does every one panic about rolling a one with their Plasma weapons, you
>still get a 3+ save! In order to loose the model first you need to roll a
1
>and then a 1 or a 2, the odds are actually against that!
>
Alright, if you knew how fuckin' bad I roll my die, you wouldn't do it
either. Maybe I'll try a few games with my ML as PC-proxies, but actually I
don't trust in my luck that much anymore ...
Greets from Germany,
Tobias
Tobias Reinold
Greg Brockway schrieb in Nachricht <39CF8924...@lehigh.edu>...
>Just a few questions; I don't have the codex in front of me, but...
>
No problem,
>
>>10 Tac Squad, Flamer, Heavy Flamer ... 166
>>[my bullet catchers and core of my troops ... they can also counter
>attack
>>and are a pain for soft targets]
>
>Where in the Codex does it say you can take a flamer and a heavy
>flamer? Was
>there a correction I missed (very possible)? Should be two flamers.
>
Well, I don't know about the English-language codex, but in my German Codex
it says "Schwerer Flammenwerfer" for +10 as a heavy weapon and then
"Flammenwerfer" for +6 as a special weapon which translates back to heavy
flamer and flamer ... so maybe the Salamanders in Germany have a slight
advantage ;-)
>
>>5 Scout Squad, 4 Sniper Rifles ... 85
>>[do I actually have to say something about it? Just one more question:
>Would
>>it be a good thing to spend points for more Snipers? Has anyone
>experience
>>with a squad of - let's say - 8 snipers?]
>
>Nice, but as long as you're not moving, make one of them a ML or AC. My
>1500
>Sally has 2 five man sniper scout teams, one with ML and one with AC.
>Gives you the
>ability to punch armor if need be.
>
Nice hint, I thought about this myself ... I'll try it!
>
>>Fast Assault:
>>9 Assault Marines, *without* jump-pack ... 135
>>[since they all come with BP, CCW and Frags, and cost only 15, I think
>>they're quite an alternative for the 18pts Veterans ... the only thing
>is I
>>can only give them one flamer for 12 pts and no Rhino support ... but I
>
>>actually want them to stay behind and support the flanks when it is
>>necessary ... I want a shooty army]
>
>I don't think this is given as an option for the salamander assault
>squads (jump pack
>removal, that is).
>
it isn't stated in the Codex, but don't you think it is still an option?
>
>>5 Dev Squad, 4 ML, VetSgt with Signum ... 185
>>[I love them, they have a really good hit-ratio]
>
>Also nice to drop a plasma cannon in their. The whirlwind is nice
>against large
>orks and such, but he cannon works better against the more powerful.
>
>
>>I want it to be rather shooty, and only assault when the enemy comes
>too
>>close. What do you think of it?
>
>The only way to play Sallies effectively, except against IG.
>
>Hope this helped.
>
>Greg
>
>
Thank you very much.
Tobias
Seurat
> >>10 Tac Squad, Flamer, Heavy Flamer ... 166
> >>[my bullet catchers and core of my troops ... they can also counter
> >attack
> >>and are a pain for soft targets]
> >
> >Where in the Codex does it say you can take a flamer and a heavy
> >flamer? Was
> >there a correction I missed (very possible)? Should be two flamers.
> >
>
> Well, I don't know about the English-language codex, but in my German
Codex
> it says "Schwerer Flammenwerfer" for +10 as a heavy weapon and then
> "Flammenwerfer" for +6 as a special weapon which translates back to heavy
> flamer and flamer ... so maybe the Salamanders in Germany have a slight
> advantage ;-)
English codex doesn't give the heavy flamer as an option. There is an
additional flamer in the heavy weapons for 10pts, but it isn't a heavy. The
look on the Ork opponents face when two templates come out of the rhino
after it moved is priceless. The heavy flamer would be nice, though.
You're going to mess people up at international competitions. Different
language versions have different listings.
> >I don't think this is given as an option for the salamander assault
> >squads (jump pack
> >removal, that is).
> >
>
> it isn't stated in the Codex, but don't you think it is still an option?
I think the Salamanders forsook the jump pack removal option so they could
take the flamers.
> >>5 Dev Squad, 4 ML, VetSgt with Signum ... 185
> >>[I love them, they have a really good hit-ratio]
> >
> >Also nice to drop a plasma cannon in their. The whirlwind is nice
> >against large
> >orks and such, but he cannon works better against the more powerful.
Nothing like the vet sg w/signum. Worth every point, IMO.
Seurat
Kaos Lord
Seurat <seu...@enter.net> wrote in message
news:wtNz5.1701$mC.1...@monger.newsread.com...
>
> "Tobias Reinold" <Toxi...@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:8qo9ei$148$17$1...@news.t-online.com...
> > >>10 Tac Squad, Flamer, Heavy Flamer ... 166
> > >>[my bullet catchers and core of my troops ... they can also counter
> > >attack
> > >>and are a pain for soft targets]
> > >
> > >Where in the Codex does it say you can take a flamer and a heavy
> > >flamer? Was
> > >there a correction I missed (very possible)? Should be two flamers.
> > >
> >
> > Well, I don't know about the English-language codex, but in my German
> Codex
> > it says "Schwerer Flammenwerfer" for +10 as a heavy weapon and then
> > "Flammenwerfer" for +6 as a special weapon which translates back to
heavy
> > flamer and flamer ... so maybe the Salamanders in Germany have a slight
> > advantage ;-)
>
> English codex doesn't give the heavy flamer as an option. There is an
> additional flamer in the heavy weapons for 10pts, but it isn't a heavy.
The
> look on the Ork opponents face when two templates come out of the rhino
> after it moved is priceless. The heavy flamer would be nice, though.
> You're going to mess people up at international competitions. Different
> language versions have different listings.
>
I suspect a typo, because the first flamer cost 10 points and the second is
6. What is more the Heavy Flamer is a 10pt upgrade of Terminators, of course
since GW NEVER does official errata, we may never know!
Kaos
Ralf van den Broek
> Ok, drop the whirlwind, they suck, for just an extra 40 points you could
> have a VINDICATOR!!!!!!
Oh, yes, let's pay 40 more points to get a vehicle that needs LOS and
needs to get within 24". Being the only vehicle in this Salamander army,
the Whirlwind could nicely hide behing a wood with it's guess weapon, so
it isn't as much a heavy weapon magnet (and it has twice the range, and
it hacks through hordes of light troops just as easy)
David Gausebeck
>> additional flamer in the heavy weapons for 10pts, but it isn't a heavy. The
>> look on the Ork opponents face when two templates come out of the rhino
>> after it moved is priceless. The heavy flamer would be nice, though.
>> You're going to mess people up at international competitions. Different
>> language versions have different listings.
>>
>
>I suspect a typo, because the first flamer cost 10 points and the second is
>6. What is more the Heavy Flamer is a 10pt upgrade of Terminators, of course
>since GW NEVER does official errata, we may never know!
It's not a typo... this one is actually in the Q&A, in the salamanders
section:
1) Is the second flamer in the tactical squad an error? Should it be
a heavy flamer?
Sweet Jesus. No it isn't a typo, it means precisely (for
once) what it says - you can trade in your heavy weapon slot for an
extra flamer (not heavy flamer) for 10 pts. It costs more because two
flamers is more than twice as good as one.
-Dave
Kaos Lord
David Gausebeck <gaus...@paypal.com> wrote in message
news:39cfd197....@news.pacbell.net...
Kaos
a ROGUE trader
Riboflavin
>Ok, drop the whirlwind, they suck,
Whirlwinds rock against everything but marines, the non-marine players
around here fear my whirlwinds greatly. At 75pts they're not horrible
against marines, and great for whatever else you may run into.
> for just an extra 40 points you could
>have a VINDICATOR!!!!!!
Let's see, a vindicator has only half the range of the whirlwind and
requires LOS. That means that it can't sit back and shoot like the rest of
his army, that it has to be exposed to enemy fire in order to fire (unlike
the WW), and that it will be the only vehicle target in his army. Looks like
128 pts that will die quickly without a whole lot of effect on the battle,
or be ignored because of its short range. Not exactly an inspiring change to
the army list.
Riboflavin
>Hello Everybody,
>after a few more games (which I all lost due to bad dice luck and immature
>tactics, - save one game against Necrons), I have come up with this new
army
>list. I own all models of it right now, and I am planning only small or
>minor changes (but even this attitude may change after having a few battles
>with this force). Note that Salamander rules apply. Comments are given when
>I feel it necessary:
OK - the big thing is that I don't really think you've got nearly enough
firepower in your army. Your long-range firepower is just 6 MLs and a
whirlwind; that's not atrocious for 1500pts, but another marine force can
bring twice as many heavy weapons to the table and still have a decent
number of models, plus a few power weapons to slice you up if you managed to
get near him. If you're going to go for lots of firepower and low mobility,
you absolutely need more heavy weapons.
>HQ:
>Leader with StormBolter, CCW and Frags ... 37
>
>[now, that's a pretty cheap HQ, eh? I actually don't believe in an
>tooled-up, expensive HQ anymore, after all, I want to spend my points in
>troops and heavy weaponery, not in a single guy]
There's no point in buying 1 CCW since it does absolutely nothing for you,
and frag grenades are pretty pointless for this guy too. It's 2 pts, but
they're 2 points that aren't buying ANYTHING; you could buy an auspex that
at least does something occasionally instead. If you're just taking him to
fill an HQ slot, you may as well give him a signum and save 15pts by not
taking one of your vets, since you're not using the vets as anything but a
signum carrier.
>Troops:
>5 Tac Squad, Plasma Rifle, Missile Launcher ... 91
>5 Tac Squad, Plasma Rifle, Missile Launcher ... 91
>[Those will simply support the flanks, and give return fire]
These are OK, but 5-man squads don't take that much to kill. You don't
really seem to have much bulk to protect your more valuable squads - you've
got 1 10-man squad, and the rest are all only 5-strong, so someone can pick
and choose which squads they want to wipe out once the 10-man is gone or
damaged. There's not a whole lot you can do about it on 1000pts,
>10 Tac Squad, Flamer, Heavy Flamer ... 166
It's 2 flamers according to the English Codex, I see that that point has
been brought up so I'm not going to get it. This is a nice squad, but will
have a hard time simply because it's the only 10-man squad and will
apparently be holding the front of your line, so probably won't last all
that long.
>[my bullet catchers and core of my troops ... they can also counter attack
>and are a pain for soft targets]
>
>5 Tac Squad, Melter, Multimelter, Veteran Sgt+Signum ... 130
IT'S MELTA, NOT MELTER. Anyway, the melta gun-multimelta combo isn't all
that impressive - you're generally only going to get the penetration with
one or the other. If a vehicle is within 24" you can hit it with the MM
without bonus penetration, if it's within 18" you can hit it with the MM or
MG (if you move) without bonus penetration, if it's within 12" you can hit
it with either the MM or MG for extra penetration but not both. You're
better off with MM/PG or ML/melta, and it costs less too.
Since this squad doesn't have a rhino, it will probably get charged before
anyone comes within 12" of it anyway (which negates the benefit of melta).
>5 Scout Squad, 4 Sniper Rifles ... 85
>[do I actually have to say something about it? Just one more question:
Would
>it be a good thing to spend points for more Snipers? Has anyone experience
>with a squad of - let's say - 8 snipers?]
I don't like scouts much at all, that 4+ armor save really weakens them, and
sniper rifles are not that impressive (against the wraithlord they're about
as good as a similarly priced ML/PG squad, against most everything else
they're worse aside from the pin check, against vehicles they're worthless).
If you're taking scouts, you really ought to put an autocannon into the
squad to help with cracking vehicles - the AC is really nice against light
vehicles.
>Fast Assault:
>9 Assault Marines, *without* jump-pack ... 135
Not a legal choice for salamanders. It's not a good choice anyway - what are
they going to do? There's not a single power weapon in your army, so they're
not frightening to any flavor of marines (and especially not to BAs, SWs, or
BTs who should have plenty of PWs to eat these guys), against orks you'd be
better off with a tac squad's extra bolter fire, against guard they won't do
anything, against Eldar they're either overkill (guardians) or still not
able to do the job (banshees, wraithlord, etc).
You'd be better off taking the points you spend here to make your commander
a chaplain (with thunderhammer), buy a PF for the vet in the melta squad,
and beef up the melta squad. A few high-powered HtH weapons will do a better
job with counterassaults than a batch of 2-weapon guys.
>[since they all come with BP, CCW and Frags, and cost only 15, I think
>they're quite an alternative for the 18pts Veterans ... the only thing is I
>can only give them one flamer for 12 pts and no Rhino support ... but I
>actually want them to stay behind and support the flanks when it is
>necessary ... I want a shooty army]
Yes, they're a better deal than vets, but they're not that helpful to your
army. I mean, this squad for 'supporting the flanks' is 20% of your models,
and really isn't scary to most armies.
>Support:
>Whirlwind, Extra Armor ... 80
I wouldn't bother with armor on a whirlwind, it should be out of sight. It
can come in handy, but I'd rather spend the 5pts on melta bombs for one of
your vets.
>5 Dev Squad, 4 ML, VetSgt with Signum ... 185
>[I love them, they have a really good hit-ratio]
MLs are not a bad weapon, but what happens if someone takes a land raider
(not impossible) or Russ (expected)? You need a couple of S9 weapons just to
have a good chance to crack those big vehicles before they really damage
your army
>Alltogether: 1000 pts.
>
>I want it to be rather shooty, and only assault when the enemy comes too
>close. What do you think of it?
>
It's so-so at shooting, but doesn't have that much long-range firepower (6
MLs and a whirlwind), so it can't really go toe-to-toe with a seriously
shooty army (for example, one with 5MLs, 4LCs, and 2PCs). Your hand to hand
stuff isn't exactly impressive against other marines, and most other
opponents would be hurt more by an extra round or two of bolter fire than by
your assault squad's extra HtH attacks.
--
Kevin Allegood ribotr...@mindspring.pants.com
Remove the pants from my email address to reply
"If the Chinese language were made of Legos, you would have just
built a really elaborate postmodern drawbridge which collapsed,
killing twenty."-Kibo
Riboflavin
>OK - the big thing is that I don't really think you've got nearly enough
>firepower in your army. Your long-range firepower is just 6 MLs and a
>whirlwind; that's not atrocious for 1500pts,
I meant 1000pts up there, it would be weak for 1500pts.
Neal
Kaos Lord wrote:
>
> >Tobias Reinold <Toxi...@gmx.net> wrote in message
> >news:8qnt36$rka$11$1...@news.t-online.com...
> > >Devestator squads are good, and they seem to reflect a persons style of
> > >play, I have seem them with all ML, all LC, all HB, and one with all PC,
> > points *are* a bargain), and PCs can get too dangerous, even with a signum
> > ... and I actually never thought of using LCs ... mostly because of their
> > point cost and since I can nearly have the same with MLs
> Why does every one panic about rolling a one with their Plasma weapons, you
> still get a 3+ save! In order to loose the model first you need to roll a 1
> and then a 1 or a 2, the odds are actually against that!
Around here, Devastator squads with 4 Plasma Cannons are pretty much the
standard. We still get some with Heavy Bolters and some with Lascannons,
but the Missile Launcher has gone the way of the Dodo. The frag missile
only makes sense against Orks and bad Tyranids, and the Krak missile is
a weak Lascannon shot.
The cost of the weapon is an issue, but the extra points are quickly
made up by the four Strength 7, AP 2 blast templates that spew out at a
three-foot range. Very comparable to an extra foot of Demolisher range,
with a better Ballistic Skill.
-Neal
Neal
Tobias Reinold wrote:
> >Where in the Codex does it say you can take a flamer and a heavy
> >flamer? Was
> >there a correction I missed (very possible)? Should be two flamers.
> >
>
> Well, I don't know about the English-language codex, but in my German Codex
> it says "Schwerer Flammenwerfer" for +10 as a heavy weapon and then
> "Flammenwerfer" for +6 as a special weapon which translates back to heavy
> flamer and flamer ... so maybe the Salamanders in Germany have a slight
> advantage ;-)
LMAO at the official GW people who insisted this wasn't a typo.
-Neal
Neal
Kaos Lord wrote:
> > It's not a typo... this one is actually in the Q&A, in the salamanders
> > section:
> >
> > 1) Is the second flamer in the tactical squad an error? Should it be
> > a heavy flamer?
> > Sweet Jesus. No it isn't a typo, it means precisely (for
> > once) what it says - you can trade in your heavy weapon slot for an
> > extra flamer (not heavy flamer) for 10 pts. It costs more because two
> > flamers is more than twice as good as one.
> >
> Sounds like a back pedal to me...
Hilarious in its weakness. There was a big argument about the second
flamer at +10 right when the Codex came out. Sprange, et. al., insisted
that a second flamer was so much better than a single one that it
merited the extra point cost, despite being listed in the middle of the
Heavy Weapons choices for the squad.
It was resolved (with typical skill) when the Official GW Person issued
this answer for the Q&A. Apparently he can't read German. AND ...
Their policy of coming up with hilarious, spurious, stupid explanations
for their own mistakes continues. Do they really think that admitting
they left out the word "Heavy", when it is so obvious, would ruin them
as a company?
-Neal
John L. Martin
> Codex
> > it says "Schwerer Flammenwerfer" for +10 as a heavy weapon and then
> > "Flammenwerfer" for +6 as a special weapon which translates back to
heavy
> > flamer and flamer ... so maybe the Salamanders in Germany have a slight
> > advantage ;-)
>
> additional flamer in the heavy weapons for 10pts, but it isn't a heavy.
The
> look on the Ork opponents face when two templates come out of the rhino
> after it moved is priceless. The heavy flamer would be nice, though.
> You're going to mess people up at international competitions. Different
> language versions have different listings.
>
the English Codex.
Exhibit A
In the English Codex you have a paragraph like this:
"...Heavy Bolter +5, Flamer +10, Missile Launcher +20...."
And the next paragraph has:
"...Flamer +6, Melta Gun +10, Plasma Gun +6,..."
There is a flamer listing in the "heavy weapon" paragraph which would lead
one to believe that it should be a HEAVY flamer.
Exhibit B
GW released a new model of a Power Armor Marine with a Heavy Flamer. If
this is not a typo, then there is no upgrade anywhere in the codex that
makes use of the model GW just released. For GW, this is very atypical.
Exhibit C
The German language codex as listed above has a "Schwerer Flammenwerfer" for
+10 points and has been pointed out means "Heavy Flamer." Could it be more
than coincidence that the cost of the German "Schwerer Flammenwerfer" is 10
points just like the English "Flamer"?
The evidence is clearly there for a Heavy Flamer, so I would say that it IS
an option.
--
John
E-mail: jlma...@nconnect.net
URL: http://www.nconnect.net/~jlmartin
ICQ: 9738000
"And they had over them a king, an angel of this abyss; his name is
Abaddon."
Rev. 9:11
Robert Williams
>
>I suspect a typo, because the first flamer cost 10 points and the second is
>6. What is more the Heavy Flamer is a 10pt upgrade of Terminators, of course
>since GW NEVER does official errata, we may never know!
This has been done to death on theis NG and various lists :)
It is *NOT* a typo. Originally, it was to have been a heavy flamer (the reason
why, int he WD248 battle report, there was a heavy flamer salamander), but it
was changed to a regular flamer.
Unforutnately, some idiots translating the codex into other language versions
decided it was a typo for some reason, and changed it.
Rob
Robert Williams
>> it says "Schwerer Flammenwerfer" for +10 as a heavy weapon and then
>> "Flammenwerfer" for +6 as a special weapon which translates back to heavy
>> flamer and flamer ... so maybe the Salamanders in Germany have a slight
>> advantage ;-)
>
>
It isn't and never has been a typo. It was a deliberate change.
Whoever translated it must have been an idiot, like you, who thought it should
be a heavy flamer, just because it was listed as a weapon uprgrade with a few
heavy weapons.
Rob
Riboflavin
>Exhibit A
>In the English Codex you have a paragraph like this:
>"...Heavy Bolter +5, Flamer +10, Missile Launcher +20...."
>And the next paragraph has:
>"...Flamer +6, Melta Gun +10, Plasma Gun +6,..."
>There is a flamer listing in the "heavy weapon" paragraph which would lead
>one to believe that it should be a HEAVY flamer.
>
assault weapon and not a heavy weapon. That renders the 'it's in the heavy
weapons list' argument rather moot; if the list was actually of heavy
weapons, the heavy flamer would not belong in it as it's not a heavy weapon.
More significantly, there is not actually a 'heavy weapons' and 'special
weapons' section like there was in V2; for regular marines, the weapons
options match up with the old heavy and special sections, but it's not a
rule. After all, the BTs have an option for a power weapon, power fist, or
any of several heavy weapons in what is allegedly the heavy weapons section.
If it was a heavy weapons section, those weapons should not be in it.
Neal
And whomever did the proofreading must be an idiot like you - it's a
shame us idiots can't see the forest for the trees, eh? Oh wait, I
forgot. This is GW - there is no proofreading.
And what about that new Marine mini with the Heavy Flamer? Is he a
translation mistake too?
-Neal
Tobias Reinold
>And what about that new Marine mini with the Heavy Flamer? Is he a
>translation mistake too?
>
May I ask where I can get a picture of this marine and get info if he is
sold yet? I glued together two flamers and cut off their little fuel tanks
and replaced it by a melta bomb to get a heavy flamer (which looks quite
cool) but I wouldn't mind to get an original one for my Salamanders either.
Tobias
Kaos Lord
Unless it's in the Salamaders Tactical Squad, there is no Space Marine
w/Heavy Flamer (other then terminators) listed in the current trade order
form...
--
Kaos
a ROGUE trader
John L. Martin
"Riboflavin" <ri...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8qref8$1c4$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> John L. Martin wrote in message <39d0a...@windy.powercom.net>...
> >Exhibit A
> >In the English Codex you have a paragraph like this:
> >"...Heavy Bolter +5, Flamer +10, Missile Launcher +20...."
> >And the next paragraph has:
> >"...Flamer +6, Melta Gun +10, Plasma Gun +6,..."
> >There is a flamer listing in the "heavy weapon" paragraph which would
lead
> >one to believe that it should be a HEAVY flamer.
> >
> That argument is extremely flawed. First of all, the heavy flamer is an
> assault weapon and not a heavy weapon. That renders the 'it's in the heavy
> weapons list' argument rather moot; if the list was actually of heavy
> weapons, the heavy flamer would not belong in it as it's not a heavy
weapon.
> More significantly, there is not actually a 'heavy weapons' and 'special
> weapons' section like there was in V2; for regular marines, the weapons
> options match up with the old heavy and special sections, but it's not a
> rule. After all, the BTs have an option for a power weapon, power fist, or
> any of several heavy weapons in what is allegedly the heavy weapons
section.
> If it was a heavy weapons section, those weapons should not be in it.
There are many instances where the codexes list weapon options in two
paragraphs like this
Options: One Space Marine in the squad may be armed with one of the
following weapons: heavy bolter at +5 pts; missile launcher at +10 pts; or a
lascannon at +15 pts.
In addition one Space Marine in the squad may be armed with one of the
following weapons: flamer at +6 pts; meltagun at +10 pts; plasma gun at +6
pts.
The fact that there are exceptions doesn't mean one could not use this
pattern to help deduce intent. For example, if Codex Butt Scratchers
appears with the following two paragraphs:
Options: One Space Marine in the squad may be armed with one of the
following weapons: bolter at +5 pts; missile launcher at +10 pts; or a
lascannon at +15 pts.
In addition one Space Marine in the squad may be armed with one of the
following weapons: flamer at +6 pts; meltagun at +10 pts; plasma gun at +6
pts.
Might it not then be remotely suspicious? Past practice leads us to believe
the word HEAVY was omitted.
I admit that this argument, on its own, is not enough...but I had two other
points you did not dispute and the weight of the evidence still supports
that there may be a typo.
Perhaps, we could get group readers with the Italian, Spanish, etc. versions
to report what their codex says. If either the German or English codex is
the ONLY one that was different we could use that to help determine the
answer.
Robert Williams
Neal wrote in message <39D1C69C...@writeme.com>...
>
>
>Robert Williams wrote:
>>
>> >> Well, I don't know about the English-language codex, but in my German
Codex
>> >> it says "Schwerer Flammenwerfer" for +10 as a heavy weapon and then
>> >> "Flammenwerfer" for +6 as a special weapon which translates back to heavy
>> >> flamer and flamer ... so maybe the Salamanders in Germany have a slight
>> >> advantage ;-)
>> >
>> >LMAO at the official GW people who insisted this wasn't a typo.
>> >
>>
>> It isn't and never has been a typo. It was a deliberate change.
>>
>> Whoever translated it must have been an idiot, like you, who thought it
should
>> be a heavy flamer, just because it was listed as a weapon uprgrade with a few
>> heavy weapons.
>
>And whomever did the proofreading must be an idiot like you - it's a
>shame us idiots can't see the forest for the trees, eh? Oh wait, I
>forgot. This is GW - there is no proofreading.
No proof reading needed. The option was *chaned*. That's a fact, wether you
like it or not.
>
>And what about that new Marine mini with the Heavy Flamer? Is he a
>translation mistake too?
There is no marine mini with a Heavy Flamer. Its a multi-melta, numb-nuts.
Rob
Tobias Reinold
>> sold yet? I glued together two flamers and cut off their little fuel
tanks
>> and replaced it by a melta bomb to get a heavy flamer (which looks quite
>> cool) but I wouldn't mind to get an original one for my Salamanders
>either.
>>
>
>Unless it's in the Salamaders Tactical Squad, there is no Space Marine
>w/Heavy Flamer (other then terminators) listed in the current trade order
>form...
>
huh? In the Tactical Squad of the Salamanders I bought here (in Germany)
there's a Marien with a Multimelter and a Marine with a Plasma Rifle ...
wtf, where is my heavy flamer, when I am able to use it in my force here?
GW starts to piss me off.
Tobias
Kaos Lord
Read the first word in my sentence "UNLESS" since it did NOT come in your
box, then it leads me to believe that there is NO HEAVY FLAMER figure for
Space Marines!
Tobias Reinold
>> >w/Heavy Flamer (other then terminators) listed in the current trade
order
>> >form...
>> >
>>
>> huh? In the Tactical Squad of the Salamanders I bought here (in Germany)
>> there's a Marien with a Multimelter and a Marine with a Plasma Rifle ...
>> wtf, where is my heavy flamer, when I am able to use it in my force here?
>> GW starts to piss me off.
>>
>
>Read the first word in my sentence "UNLESS" since it did NOT come in your
>box, then it leads me to believe that there is NO HEAVY FLAMER figure for
>Space Marines!
>
I am sorry. I didn't read it carefully enough.
Though, I like my conversion a lot :-)
And this one GW-Shop clerk pisses me off anyway ...
Tobias
Neal
Tobias Reinold wrote:
>
> >> >Unless it's in the Salamaders Tactical Squad, there is no Space Marine
> >> >w/Heavy Flamer (other then terminators) listed in the current trade
> >>order form...
True.
> >> huh? In the Tactical Squad of the Salamanders I bought here (in Germany)
> >> there's a Marien with a Multimelter and a Marine with a Plasma Rifle ...
> >> wtf, where is my heavy flamer, when I am able to use it in my force here?
> >> GW starts to piss me off.
> >Read the first word in my sentence "UNLESS" since it did NOT come in your
> >box, then it leads me to believe that there is NO HEAVY FLAMER figure for
> >Space Marines!
I think John's original post says that the figure is on the way, but not
available yet. Perhaps he can point us to a picture or a sighting?
-Neal
Neal
> >And what about that new Marine mini with the Heavy Flamer? Is he a
> >translation mistake too?
>
> There is no marine mini with a Heavy Flamer. Its a multi-melta, numb-nuts.
When the mini is released (shortly), will I regain feeling in my nuts?
Perhaps because you are massaging them with your tongue?
-Neal
Riboflavin
>> assault weapon and not a heavy weapon. That renders the 'it's in the
heavy
>> weapons list' argument rather moot; if the list was actually of heavy
>> weapons, the heavy flamer would not belong in it as it's not a heavy
>weapon.
>So the adjective is useless? It is, after all, not a Super Size Flamer
The adjective is part of the name, so is only useful to specify what the
weapon is but not its game rules. A heavy flamer is an assault weapon, an
assault cannon is a heavy weapon, a multilaser fires multiple shots but a
multimelta doesn't, storm bolters and typhoon missile launchers have nothing
to do with weather, an autocannon doesn't autohit or autowound, etc.
The fact that the heavy flamer is an assault weapon makes your argument that
it belongs in the heavy weapons section completely wrong, as it's not a
heavy weapon.
>> More significantly, there is not actually a 'heavy weapons' and 'special
>> weapons' section like there was in V2; for regular marines, the weapons
>> If it was a heavy weapons section, those weapons should not be in it.
>There are many instances where the codexes list weapon options in two
>paragraphs like this
[snip]
>The fact that there are exceptions doesn't mean one could not use this
>pattern to help deduce intent.
Even if it did, the fact that a heavy flamer is an assault weapon means that
one could only reasonably deduce that neither the flamer nor heavy flamer
should be in the list, as neither one is actually a heavy weapon. Like I
said, this argument of yours doesn't work because the heavy flamer is not a
heavy weapon.
>For example, if Codex Butt Scratchers
>appears with the following two paragraphs:
>
>Options: One Space Marine in the squad may be armed with one of the
>following weapons: bolter at +5 pts; missile launcher at +10 pts; or a
>lascannon at +15 pts.
>In addition one Space Marine in the squad may be armed with one of the
>following weapons: flamer at +6 pts; meltagun at +10 pts; plasma gun at +6
>pts.
>
>Might it not then be remotely suspicious? Past practice leads us to
believe
>the word HEAVY was omitted.
That's a completely different matter than the Salamander's codex. First of
all, the marines are already armed with bolters, so upgrading to a bolter as
an option is nonsensical (while upgrading to a flamer is sensible). Also,
the standard marine list actually has the option you're using as an example
(unlike the second flamer, which is new to salamanders). Finally, the heavy
bolter is of a different class of weapon than the bolter, while the flamer
and heavy flamer are both assault weapons. Your example is only vaguely
similar to what is being discussed, and doesn't show anything.
>I admit that this argument, on its own, is not enough...
That argument, on it's own, is completely and utterly invalid because a
heavy flamer is not a heavy weapon.
>but I had two other
>points you did not dispute and the weight of the evidence still supports
>that there may be a typo.
I didn't bother with them because neither one works at all, and there is NO
EVIDENCE that the flamer entry is a typo, while there is evidence that it is
not (the Q&A listing).
I am not aware of the existence of a marine with a heavy flamer, if you can
show me that he exists (by citing where I can see a pic of a non-converted
one in a codex, catalog, WD, or by pointing me to the spot where I could buy
one) then the argument might have some weight. But the only marines I'm
aware of with a vaguely HF looking weapon actually have a multimelta, so I'm
extremely skeptical that the figure even exists. Can you tell us where to
see it?
>Perhaps, we could get group readers with the Italian, Spanish, etc.
versions
>to report what their codex says. If either the German or English codex is
>the ONLY one that was different we could use that to help determine the
>answer.
As GW is headquartered in England, the Codexes are written in the English
language first and translated to the others later, so any different text in
foreign language versions is going to be a result of mistranslation.
Whatever is said in a foreign language version is irrelevant to any
discussion of 'intent', since they're just translations of the
English-language codex and so are even farther from the idea behind the
rule.
The word 'flamer' without 'heavy' in front of it is clearly written in C:A,
so there's absolutely no lack of clarity in the written rule, and the Q&A
clarifies that that is what was intended with the rule. Your first argument
relies on the HF being a HW, which it is not, your second is very likely a
mixup between a MM-armed and HF-armed marine, and your third ignores the
fact that the rules are originally written in English.
Robert Williams
Neal wrote in message <39D29D28...@writeme.com>...
>Robert Williams wrote:
>
>> >And what about that new Marine mini with the Heavy Flamer? Is he a
>> >translation mistake too?
>>
>> There is no marine mini with a Heavy Flamer. Its a multi-melta, numb-nuts.
>
>When the mini is released (shortly), will I regain feeling in my nuts?
Look, get this through your thick skull:
There is no Space Marine mini with a Heavy Flamer. There is not one due for
release either.
There is a Salamander model in the studio Salamander army with a multi-melta
with the nozzles chopped off and replaced with flamer nozzles. It was a really
shit heavy flamer conversion, done by whoever did the studio army, when the list
still had the Heavy Flamer included.
This is the model that idiots like yourself probably think is a heavy flamer
model that's about to be released. Newsflash: Its a conversion.
Rob
Neal
> There is a Salamander model in the studio Salamander army with a multi-melta
> with the nozzles chopped off and replaced with flamer nozzles. It was a really
> shit heavy flamer conversion, done by whoever did the studio army, when the list
> still had the Heavy Flamer included.
> This is the model that idiots like yourself probably think is a heavy flamer
> model that's about to be released. Newsflash: Its a conversion.
So, according to this line, they *had* a Heavy Flamer in the list,
converted one up, painted it, put it in the studio army, and *then*
decided it was never meant to be in the list, and published that same
list with a "flamer +10" in it, between two Heavy Weapons? And the
Germans were treated to a translation error, unnoticed by GW
proofreaders (if any), that validated the existance of this converted model?
This is too rich!
Would the the word "a second", front of the second listing of "flamer
+6" really have been so difficult? Or perhaps they just f**ked up *yet
again*, and waited for the fanboys to develop a convoluted and
improbable story, while denying everything.
In any case, the difference is miniscule in its effect on the balance of
a the Salamanders army. It mostly reflects the remarkably poor quality
of the GW printed material, and their complete denial of responsibility
for their own errors. Luckily, the photographic evidence of the High
Marshall with Iron Halo was inescapable, they were forced to admit they
made a mistake (although the reasoning of those who said that the
wargear of Special Characters didn't count toward the army limit was
more attractive, in my opinion. I think they would have used that line
if they had thought of it.)
-Neal
Robert Williams
>
>So, according to this line, they *had* a Heavy Flamer in the list,
>converted one up, painted it, put it in the studio army, and *then*
>decided it was never meant to be in the list, and published that same
>list with a "flamer +10" in it, between two Heavy Weapons?
Correct. The first weapon upgrade isn't heavy weapon exclusive. They decided
to change it, that's a fact.
And the
>Germans were treated to a translation error, unnoticed by GW
>proofreaders (if any), that validated the existance of this converted model?
No translation error. They thought, like many idiots who think it should be a
heavy flamer, that because it is grouped with 3 heavy weapons, it should be a
heavy flamer. So they decided to fix the "mistake", presumably without asking
anyone wether it was a mistake or not.
So basically we have these facts:
- The salamanders where going to have a Heavy Flamer in their list, but it was
changed to a regular flamer before C:A went to print.
- There is no marine model with a heavy flamer coming out. Got that?
- You're an imbecile.
Rob
Tobias Reinold
>Germans were treated to a translation error, unnoticed by GW
>proofreaders (if any), that validated the existance of this converted
model?
Along with the Austrian and Swiss WH40k Players, if I may add :-)
Anyways, I enjoy my heavy flamer a lot.
Tobias
Neal
Robert Williams wrote:
>
> >
> >So, according to this line, they *had* a Heavy Flamer in the list,
> >converted one up, painted it, put it in the studio army, and *then*
> >decided it was never meant to be in the list, and published that same
> >list with a "flamer +10" in it, between two Heavy Weapons?
>
> Correct. The first weapon upgrade isn't heavy weapon exclusive. They decided
> to change it, that's a fact.
It makes my sides ache to imagine them *scaling a Heavy Flamer down to a
regular Flamer*, adding +4 points to the cost, and feeling that this was
a necessary change to provide balance in the squad, *After playtesting*.
The difference between a 5/4 and a 4/5 Flamer and the 4-point swing in
cost are barely noticeable at best.
Yet you continue to insist that, despite all appearances and logic, they
tried out the Heavy Flamer (even built Marines with one and painted
them), then decided that the list required a regular Flamer listed in
exactly the same place in the paragraph for exactly the same cost as the
Heavy Flamer.
*And* that those dumkopfs in Germany have no editors, they just
translate the books and publish them and no one bothers to see if there
are any mistakes.
You're a pathetic excuse for a reasoning being.
> And the
> >Germans were treated to a translation error, unnoticed by GW
> >proofreaders (if any), that validated the existance of this converted model?
>
> No translation error. They thought, like many idiots who think it should be a
> heavy flamer, that because it is grouped with 3 heavy weapons, it should be a
> heavy flamer. So they decided to fix the "mistake", presumably without asking
> anyone wether it was a mistake or not.
You make is it sound like a rogue group of German gamers captured the
Codex and translated it while in hiding! They all work for GW,
regardless of country or language. It's not a f**king matter of "asking
anyone whether it was a mistake or not". It's a matter of your editor
and proofreader catching mistakes. Your sad justification defies even
GW's miserable quality control.
> So basically we have these facts:
>
> - The salamanders where going to have a Heavy Flamer in their list, but it was
> changed to a regular flamer before C:A went to print.
Changed for no reason, with existing pics of the old model, and not
changed in Germany (at least).
> - There is no marine model with a heavy flamer coming out. Got that?
We shall see, my nuts eagerly await the outcome.
> - You're an imbecile.
I'm tempted to unload a stream of invective on your puny mind, but
what's the point? You gave up all reason to your GW god, long ago.
-Neal
George Kullavan
I don't play Salamanders, but why would does it cost 10 pts for them to
take a single flamer if they choose to take a plasma or melta gun in
their special/assault weapon slot?
- George
Matthew Sprange
> tried out the Heavy Flamer (even built Marines with one and painted
> them), then decided that the list required a regular Flamer listed in
> exactly the same place in the paragraph for exactly the same cost as the
> Heavy Flamer.
To everyone else, when it was in the list, the Heavy Flamer cost more than
10 points.
Neal is just on another bender, without knowing quite what he is talking
about.
> Changed for no reason, with existing pics of the old model, and not
> changed in Germany (at least).
Ah, gee, let's all have agood think - can we suppose any reasons it was
dropped?
> I'm tempted to unload a stream of invective on your puny mind, but
> what's the point? You gave up all reason to your GW god, long ago.
And you were twisted way before that.
Matthew
Matthew Sprange
> take a single flamer if they choose to take a plasma or melta gun in
> their special/assault weapon slot?
It is a second special weapon.
Look at the way Guard HQ's over pay for their special weapons - simply
because they can have four of them. . .
Matthew
Robert Williams
>>
>> Correct. The first weapon upgrade isn't heavy weapon exclusive. They
decided
>> to change it, that's a fact.
>
>It makes my sides ache to imagine them *scaling a Heavy Flamer down to a
>regular Flamer*, adding +4 points to the cost, and feeling that this was
>a necessary change to provide balance in the squad, *After playtesting*.
Who said it was after playtesting?
>Yet you continue to insist that, despite all appearances and logic, they
>tried out the Heavy Flamer (even built Marines with one and painted
>them),
You're getting several key things wrong here, and this is one of them. They
*converted one* marine into a heavy flamer marine. No others. No proper heavy
flamer models.
then decided that the list required a regular Flamer listed in
>exactly the same place in the paragraph for exactly the same cost as the
>Heavy Flamer.
You're supposing that a heavy flamer should be there. It shouldn't.
It got changed, its not a typographical error. I'm not sure why you find that
so hard to except, but I think it may have something to do with the fact you're
a moron.
>*And* that those dumkopfs in Germany have no editors, they just
>translate the books and publish them and no one bothers to see if there
>are any mistakes.
Wrong. As I've already explained, which you seem unable to accept for some
reason, the editors, like you, supposed it was a typo and should have been a
heavy flamer, when it wasn't.
Translators do try to correct things (the italian DA codex gives Asmodai a
command squad), but apparently they don't always ask if what they think needs
correcting actually needs correcting.
>> So basically we have these facts:
>>
>> - The salamanders where going to have a Heavy Flamer in their list, but it
was
>> changed to a regular flamer before C:A went to print.
>
>Changed for no reason,
You're a very, very stupid person. Its quite obvious to see the reasons why it
was changed.
> with existing pics of the old model,
Wow. There are many instances of such a thing happening. Like the Catachan
assault squads in WD242 having two heavy flamers, and the pics of the Black
Templar Marshall with an Iron Halo in C:A.
and not
>changed in Germany (at least).
Not changed in Germany and a couple of other countries. Changed in the
majority, however.
Rob
Bluemage
Matthew Sprange wrote:
>
> > I don't play Salamanders, but why would does it cost 10 pts for them to
> > take a single flamer if they choose to take a plasma or melta gun in
> > their special/assault weapon slot?
>
> It is a second special weapon.
>
> Look at the way Guard HQ's over pay for their special weapons - simply
> because they can have four of them. . .
>
Yeah, and just like how Blood Angel Honor Guard pay extra for their
extra flamers. Oh, wait, no they don't...
- Bluemage, who hasn't even seen ONE flamer in an Honor Guard squad,
'cause they all have power weapons, but still.
Matthew Sprange
> extra flamers. Oh, wait, no they don't...
I think Honour Guard tend to be expensive enough on their own. . .
> - Bluemage, who hasn't even seen ONE flamer in an Honor Guard squad,
> 'cause they all have power weapons, but still.
Yes, that does tend to happen :)
Matthew
Case
Not in my squads it doesnt... but then, to tool up the honour guard the
nasty way that I wanted gig roll in to about 500 pts for 5 men....
So I decided not to do that :)) went a little easier...
Ady
--
"They sky above the port was the colour of television, tuned to a dead
channel"
- Neuromancer
*Remove spamoff from reply-to address before mailing*
Riboflavin
Other squads that can do that pay more points or lose abilities (for
example, the various chaos squads cost the same as a marine squad but don't
get ATSKNF).